Chisholm v. Georgia
From Freepedia
| Chisholm v. Georgia | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Image:SCOTUS seal.jpg Supreme Court of the United States | ||||||||
| Decided February 19, 1793 | ||||||||
| ||||||||
| Holding | ||||||||
| States were not immune from lawsuits by individuals due to the grant to the Supreme Court of jurisdiction over them by Article III of the Constitution. | ||||||||
| Court membership | ||||||||
| ||||||||
| Case opinions | ||||||||
| ||||||||
| Laws applied | ||||||||
| U.S. Const. Art. III; Judiciary Act of 1789 | ||||||||
| Superseded by: | ||||||||
| U.S. Const. Amend. XI |
Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 U.S. 419 (1793) is considered by many to be the first great United States Supreme Court case. Because of its early date, there is little background information (particularly in American law) available for it.
Contents |
Background of the case
In 1792 in South Carolina, Alexander Chisholm, the executor of the estate of Robert Farquhar, attempted to sue the state of Georgia in the Supreme Court over payments due them for goods that Farquhar had supplied Georgia during the American Revolutionary War. U.S. Attorney General Edmund Randolph appeared to argue the case for the plaintiff before the Court. Georgia refused to appear, claiming that as a "sovereign," a state did not have to appear in Court to hear a suit against it to which it did not consent.
The Court's decision
The Court, on a 4-1 decision, found in favor of the plaintiff, with Chief Justice of the United States John Jay concurring with Justices Blair, Wilson, and Cushing, with Justice Iredell dissenting. (At the time, there was no one "majority" opinion; the Justices simply delivered their own opinions one by one, in order from the most junior to the most senior.) It cited Article 3, Section 2 of the Constitution, which allows Federal courts the power to hear disputes between citizens and states.
Georgia's refusal to appear in front of the court, however, had actually denied the Court's authority to hear a case in which a state was a defendant. Following the decision, Georgia immediately challenged both it and the Court's own jurisdiction.
Finally, the passage of the Eleventh Amendment in 1795, which forbids Federal jurisdiction in cases when citizens of one state or foreign countries attempt to sue another state, formally removed the Court's jurisdiction in such cases. However, citizens of one state or foreign countries can still use the Federal courts if the state consents to be sued or if Congress, pursuant to a valid exercise of its power, abrogates the states' immunity from suit. See, e.g. Seminole Tribe of Florida v. Florida, 517 U.S. 44 (1996).
See also
External links
- Full text of the decision & case resources from Justia & Northwestern-Oyez
- Full text of the decision at Findlaw.com
